Talk:LEGO designer roles

From Brickwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is clearly POV but it also has good points in it. My suggestion is that it should be fixed and merged with the Lego Master Builders article. I'd say the author has a grudge but I will take it as just poorly written until evidence either way makes itself apparent. Tim 20:41, 26 February 2006 (Eastern Standard Time)

I support a merge. I learned a few things reading this article, it has value. POV must go though. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, February 26, 2006 (Eastern Standard Time)

I've left is as a separate article, renamed it to better reflect its contents (and correct the capitalisation) and tried to remove the POV from it whilst maintaining the information. Tim 12:10, 3 March 2006 (Eastern Standard Time)


The two removed para on glue hazards probably belong SOMEWHERE... people that want to glue LEGO will come here for info and it's good info to have... Our experience on KCC was that even the milder glues we used were horrific to work with... even in well ventilated areas for short periods they made us ill. I probably lost a few IQ points and I wasn't the major exposee. Do we have an article on gluing? Maybe there? ++Lar: t/c 14:44, March 23, 2006 (Eastern Standard Time)

An article on gluing is probably worthwhile. My problem was more that the paragraph seemed out of place here and could be summed up by a reference to the wikipedia article. No complaints from me if you revert, move etc. Tim 15:06, 23 March 2006 (Eastern Standard Time)

Trained Monkeys

This section has been removed as it appears to cross the line of NPOV too far. Without any sort of supporting references it read as a childish attack on labour-management practices of TLC. Re-worded and with some sort of supporting information regarding the source it could be re-integrated into the article. Tedward 16:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Good call, Tedward. There's more there which shows (in my view) anti-company bias and/or lack of good writing skills. I shall put it on my list. Claude Bombarde 23:38, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, that was in there a year and no one noticed?... that's really too bad. Good work guys, on removing it and tidying things up a bit. ++Lar: t/c 06:27, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
It was so obviously wrong, though, that it was not likely to be thought of as serious by even the most casual reader. Does humor have not a place in this wiki? I think it does, but careful consideration needs to be given as to where and what sort of humor is appropriate. We already have humor incorporated into serious articles (pirates, for instance). Claude Bombarde 22:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately the "Trained Monkeys" term was in FACT used on several occasions during conversations on the tasks at hand, inside the modelshop LLC. The 'manager' there, used to compare several tasks that could easily be done by trained monkeys, either to pay them less, or no pay at all. As a former employee of the LLC MS, I am a witness of many of the negative situations inside the MS, once that the more senior management staff was let go, and a younger ascending career oriented individual rose to power backed up with the complete support of his immediate manager.

It is no grudge, nor childish comments, they are facts, and despite the fact that many people that are fans and would kill for a job inside the MS, the reality is 180 degrees different.

Lugnet has two posts on the lack of proffesionalism that proliferated in the MS, and why so many people has come and go, in something that LLC sells as a dream job.

Again, the trained monkey term was used on more than occasion, that and other remarks that could easily be used in a big lawsuit against discrimination, national origin, and sexual preference. The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaerskBlue (talk • contribs) 18:48, 13 July 2008.

It might be true that the term was used, but does it add to the article? Is it the right amount of emphasis? I don't know the answer to those questions but those seem like the sort of questions to ask about how much emphasis to give this. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
I look forward to the citation of relevant sources and the re-integration of the section. I have no doubt there is truth to the allegations but without proper supporting documentation or statements by individuals like yourself on the record the section should not be reinstated. Tedward 03:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

I would be happy to answer any questions on the 'professional' behavior that occured inside the ModelShop during 2001 to 2005. There are two other people that might be able to further explain many of the negative talk and negative biased comments against certain 'management' individuals there. George C. and Aaron S. both exemployees also, from the LLC MS. They are Lugnet members, and can be contacted by email.

Personal tools